Johan Santana

[TheKilo]

Also, it is worth noting that the 42 SBs James sees Ellsbury stealing is in only 125 games.

 

In 150 games that would be 52 SBs. I'm sure there are better splits than "stolen bases per-game" available (I was thinking "per PA" or "per On-base", but I'm tired, it's friday, and I don't feel like doing it, plus, unless a guy is a regular pinch-hitter or role player, the guys on this list start and play as often as the team can allow him to. anyway...

 

To compare that rate to other players in 2007 (with OBP thrown in there, to remind people how rare a combination of speed and OBP is):

 

[table] | Player | G | OBP | SBs | Adj to 150 Games |

| Reyes |160 | .354 | 78 | 73 |

| Pierre | 162| .331 | 64 | 59 |

| H. Ram| 154 | .386 | 51 | 50 |

| Crawford| 143| .355 | 50 | 52 |

| B. Roberts| 156 | .377 | 50 | 48 |

| E. Byrnes | 160 | .353 | 50 | 47 |

| J. Rollins | 162 | .344 | 41 | 38 |

| C. Figgins | 115| .393 | 41 | 53 |

| Ichiro | 161 | .396 | 37 | 34 | [/table]

 

On this list, Ellsbury is roughly the base-stealer that Carl Crawford, or Hanley Ramirez or Chine Figgins are. Those are guys who you don't have to give the green light to, and each is valuable because of their speed. Would people do Crawford + Lester + Masterson + Lowrie for Santana? How about Hanley Ramirez (as we know him now) + Lester + Masterson + Lowrie for Santana?

 

I think some people think I'm crazy. That's fine. The SB totals are nothing outside of the rates he has had in the minors and in college. Neither is the OBP.

 

SBs are not highly-valued in sabermetrics. However, for the best base runners, James regularly rates them higher than those who do not steal bases and that makes sense. The best base stealers in history are guys who can turn most singles into doubles on the basepaths. Guys like Joe Morgan and Rickey Henderson and others did not take away from their team by stealing bags; Ellsbury projects to be the same way, as it looks like he will be in the class of those listed above.

 

lol @ stolen bases.

[TheKilo]

If we send the same package to Oakland(or close to it) that would mean(if deal is made)...

 

Sox will have Haren at 3 yrs/16.25M +Ellsbury+Buccholz-$ it woul cost sign Santana, No contract envy from Beckett(not saying he would complain, but it should be considered).

 

To be honest, I know Sanatana is the prize but thats not a bad fall back plan. I know Santana going to the Yanks is rough, but a rotation of Beckett, Harden, Matsuzaka,Schilling, Wake/Buccholz is better then what the Yanks will put out as of now. If Pettite comes back then the Yanks will also have a strong rotation and teams will not look forward to playing the Yanks or the Sox. If they don't already cringe when the 2 teams come to town.

 

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT DEAL GETS US HAREN, WHEN THERE WILL BE MORE TEAMS BIDDING FOR HIS SERVICES??????

[TheKilo]

Do you think there is ANY chance that Santana is not putting up those numbers when he is 32 or 33' date=' after having thrown 220 IPs over the preceeding 8 years straight? I mean, he is SO attractive right now, but he's been worked and worked. The Sox can take it easy with all of their pitchers and maxamize their development.[/quote']

 

Sure, there's that chance. If he pitches at an all world level for years 28, 29, 30, and 31, do you not see the deal as a success?

 

No. You won't, because your Ellsbury fanboyism gets in the way.

 

 

They may fill the void with guys like Masterson and Bowden. Or they could offer the same "we're not giving up our best pieces but you can take your pick otherwise" package--as mentioned by someone else above--for a guy like Bedard or Haren. :dunno:

 

You think Angelos, etc. will deal Bedard within the same division for anything less than Ellsbury or Buchholz? You think Beane will do the same thing?

 

You make me laugh.

 

There are SO many options when you have the pieces that others want. The myopic view that Santana is infinitely better than all the other options is what is getting under my skin, not the potential value that Santana will offer, which is plentiful.

 

What don't you understand that Santana is a proven commodity in this game, a bona fide ace who, by the way, is only one year older than Pedro was when we traded for him?

 

The view that Ellsbury will be worth the difference Santana brings to the table, especially when compared to Crisp, is getting under my skin. I like Ellsbury a lot but you deem him untouchable, He's not, especially when you consider getting the best pitcher in baseball.

 

I think Santana's value, as a one-year rental then Manny-type contract, is risky for a pitcher with lots of IPs under his belt and a handful of our top prospects and value-positive mlb near-regulars.

 

Fair point, but six years? On the best pitcher in baseball entering his prime?

 

I take that risk.

 

When do we get to compare Santana and Crisp vs. Ellsbury, Lester, Masterson and Lowrie, which is the offer if substituting Ellsbury? I think the Sox are pretty sure that Masterson is, at best, a very solid 2-3 type pitcher, and at worst--with this FO--a valuable mid-season trade kind of guy. His frame and tendency toward ground balls, combined with his essentially being FREE, will be attractive to somebody if the Sox feel the need.

 

If the Sox can get Snatana without giving up Buchholz or Ellsbury I'll do cartwheels.

 

If the Yanks are including Hughes the Sox have to include Ellsbury to get Santana. Buchholz should be the only untouchable.

 

 

Are you worried that Pedroia is going to come crashing back to earth too, or do you feel reassured that he's here to stay? From everything I've seen, read and intuited, Ellsbury is like Pedroia both in performance and in attitude. He's been a leader on every team he's played on. He was an outstanding player at Oregon State, leading them to the college WS. The fans will absolutely love him, which is not entirely important but certainly preferable to them NOT loving him. He has a charisma that others do not have. Again, it isn't statistically noteworthy, but it is a factor that separates the superstars from the decent-stars.

 

I won't touch the "charisma" aspect except for the fact you are comparing two different players and hope they end up being similar. You don't want the best pitcher in baseball on the team because Ellsbury could be like Pedroia??

[example1]

lol @ stolen bases.

 

lol @ blatent disregard for something that can have an impact on the game if accomplished successfully. Also, lol for not being able to say anything else.

[TheKilo]

lol @ blatent disregard for something that can have an impact on the game if accomplished successfully. Also' date=' lol for not being able to say anything else.[/quote']

 

Look, I can appreciate the fact that Ellsbury can steal bases. What's his success rate? You do realize that in order for stealing bases to be worth the risk the success rate has to be close to 80%, correct?

 

And I said plenty in my other post. Respond to that shiz.

[example1]

What a foolish set of posts TheKilo. Again, trying to make my position seem naive by misrepresenting them. When did I say I didn't want Santana?

 

Sure, there's that chance. If he pitches at an all world level for years 28, 29, 30, and 31, do you not see the deal as a success?

 

No. You won't, because your Ellsbury fanboyism gets in the way.

 

So, the Red Sox Ellsbury fanboyism is what is keeping the deal from happening, right? Because so far all I've done is explain why--it appears--the FO isn't willing to move Ellsbury. You clearly don't think the FO is capable of evaluating talent and don't give a damn what people like Bill James have to say about the situation. I guess in TheKingdom none of that matters. Just accusing people of being 'fanboys' despite the enormous amount of numbers that person has put out to justify the position.

 

You think Angelos, etc. will deal Bedard within the same division for anything less than Ellsbury or Buchholz? You think Beane will do the same thing?

 

I'm SURE Beane would do the same thing. I don't see Angelos doing it, but I was merely referring to someone's comments above. Beane would jump at the idea of having free pick of the Sox farm system for a pitcher whom he acquired for trading Mark Mulder to St. Louis, especially if he gets a comparable arm in Lester, plus Masterson, plus Crisp, plus Lowrie. He's not dumb.

 

That said, I'm actually content with the starting staff as it is now but won't mind the flexibility afforded the team when they next look to acquire a SP.

 

What don't you understand that Santana is a proven commodity in this game, a bona fide ace who, by the way, is only one year older than Pedro was when we traded for him?

 

All of what you say is true. I understand each and everything there.

 

The view that Ellsbury will be worth the difference Santana brings to the table, especially when compared to Crisp, is getting under my skin. I like Ellsbury a lot but you deem him untouchable, He's not, especially when you consider getting the best pitcher in baseball.

 

I have said that I would consider a straight-up trade, or even one with some other minor-leaguers thrown in. I think when you start talking about Lester and Ellsbury (and Masterson and Lowrie) you are REALLY pushing the envelope, and doing so without much regard for the potential for most of those players. The easiest one to write about potential wise is Ellsbury. But it would be just as easy to write about Jon Lester's potential, and Masterson's potential, and Lowrie's as well. With Masterson in particular, I wrote above about his potential trade value for years to come.

 

Fair point, but six years? On the best pitcher in baseball entering his prime?

 

I take that risk.

 

I know you take it TheKilo, and honestly that's cool with me. What would be the fun of this board if we didn't disagree sometimes?

 

That said, I still disagree with you. Six years is a really long time for a pitcher. He would be with the Red Sox in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, (just to visualize it) probably at 20 million for each of those years. If he's amenable to a shorter deal, then I'm less concerned.

 

Note: my level of concern about the ensuing contract, and my desire to trade a particular player for Santana are two completely different subjects. When I say "I open up the entire farm system to the Twins" I mean it. Hold Ellsbury, hold Buchholz, and notice how all the holes on the team get filled, cost controlled, for years and years.

 

If the Sox can get Snatana without giving up Buchholz or Ellsbury I'll do cartwheels.

 

If the Yanks are including Hughes the Sox have to include Ellsbury to get Santana. Buchholz should be the only untouchable.

 

Why do they have to get Santana? Do you really not think it is possible that the Red Sox have other ways to spend 120 million dollars in the next few years? Do you really think it makes the Yankees unbeatable? It doesn't change the fact that the Sox need to win 95 games to get to the playoffs, and in the playoffs they should have a formidable staff of Beckett, DiceK, Schilling and Buchholz/Lester/Wake. It doesn't change the fact that this team was built to win that many games last year and it succeeded, and it will improve this year with the addition of Buchholz and Ellsbury to the starting lineup.

 

 

I won't touch the "charisma" aspect except for the fact you are comparing two different players and hope they end up being similar.

 

Yeah, god forbid we talk about players that are similar. God forbid we actually take a solid look at the statistics, THUS REPLACING HOPE, to make a point. I'm not hoping they're going to be similar. I believe they are going to be similar BECAUSE... (everything I wrote above).

 

If I was being unrealistic wouldn't I have compared Ellsbury to someone a little more prominent than Pedroia? Instead, I showed his numbers according to one of the Red Sox top analysts, and compared it to other players. Unsurprisingly Pedroia was high on that list too. His talents were grossly underestimated and unperceived when he was ready to come into the league, except that pesky FO and people like you who kept believing he was something pretty good.

 

You seem to have this preconception of what a winning team is, and your need to fit that mold perhaps makes you miss the point. The team we had in 07 won. We won the World Series TheKilo. We were the best team in baseball, for much of the season. We had tremendous pitching, and that pitching stands to improve considerably with the addition of Buchholz. Agreed? The offense last year was solid, but there were some pretty big holes in Drew, Crisp and Lugo. Ellsbury, if able to produce all-around like Pedroia has (with those stupid SBs) that would eliminate one of the holes. So the offense improves. How much? It's hard to say, but I would bet that it will be a substantial upgrade.

 

Meanwhile, by the FO not flinching, the Yankees are now prepared to trade a guy who EVERYONE previously would have acknowledged as untouchable, what, 2 days ago. So while they would be picking up Santana, it will be at tremendous expense both financially and talent wise (assuming they're trading other pieces as well). Trading Hughes is like trading Buchholz, and you said Buchholz is untouchable. The Sox consider trading Buchholz + was too much as well, which means that they likely think trading Hughes + is too much, and thus a victory for the Twins. It doesn't make life easier for the Red Sox, but during the primes of guys like Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lester, Papelbon, and Pedroia (starting in, say, 2 or 3 years) the Red Sox will be in much better shape.

 

You don't want the best pitcher in baseball on the team because Ellsbury could be like Pedroia??

 

C'mon man. This would be like me saying "you are actively trying to get rid of Ellsbury because you think he sucks."

 

I DO want the best pitcher in baseball. I just don't want to use your ridiculous notion that "best pitcher in baseball" doesn't have an objective value. Your argument is basically "With Santana this team will never lose, but without him the Yankees will win for 6 years".

 

My argument is that there are objective ways of measuring player values.

 

I saw you using Win Shares earlier. Why don't you back up your statements with a full trade analysis? I've done a lot of that digging, but you don't seem to buy it. Do better.

 

Next six years: Win Shares:

Santana vs. Ellsbury, Lester, Masterson, Lowrie.

 

Go ahead and do it, or some other thorough study. Something more than "I'm smart, you're a fanboy", which is just an attack on me and not my arguments.

 

 

Hey, maybe the Sox will work out something for Santana involving Ellsbury. I certainly wouldn't be upset, but I understand why they wouldn't deal him and won't be upset if they aren't willing to budge. When you're talking about moving talent like this I think it's a win-win situation.

[example1]

Look, I can appreciate the fact that Ellsbury can steal bases. What's his success rate? You do realize that in order for stealing bases to be worth the risk the success rate has to be close to 80%, correct?

 

And I said plenty in my other post. Respond to that shiz.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2607

 

Joe Sheehan says 75%.

 

That was much easier than responding to your longer one.

 

In 104 games last year he was at 85%. Bill James is predicting 81% (42 of 52).

 

So, yeah, I realize it and I wrote about it anyway because I understand that SBs are usually an unproductive proposition. however, because I know what I'm talking about I decided to talk about SBs as being something Ellsbury can add, in the same way that other ELITE base stealers have done.

[example1]

I can't help but smile just a little bit when I think that the Yankees are going to end up paying Santana close to what he would get on the market. Instead of doing it next year, like so many of us assumed they would, they want to get started right away by dealing their top prospect.

 

What makes me smile even more? Well, this:

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/8584-yankees-minor-league-notes-5.html

 

Originally Posted by Coco's Disciples

You won't get the best pitcher in baseball without Hughes. Guaranteed.

 

Jacksonianmarch

I disagree wholeheartedly. Our minor league pitching is so deep that bundling a few together can out-shine any other offer out there. And we have the wildcard in Tabata who I would assume would be a part of any Santana deal.

 

Your predictions were good, Jacko, in that you thought the Yankees would make a serious run at him at this point. But I don't think you ever imagined that Hughes would enter the conversation.

[jacksonianmarch]

losing Hughes would hurt, but it isnt like we arent getting something back in return. I still think that we could have held out and won the sweeps without Hughes. Either way, this is as far as we should go.

[BSN07]

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT DEAL GETS US HAREN' date=' WHEN THERE WILL BE MORE TEAMS BIDDING FOR HIS SERVICES??????[/quote']

 

Because the report said that both teams are talking to Oakland, and its most likely close to the same deal...

[BSN07]

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1048168#articleFull

 

Mentions Sox and Yanks talking to Oakland about Haren for a similar or less of a package then it would cost for Santana. Not the greatest article Kilo, but it just shows that I'm not grabbing stuff out of thin air...

[das11209]

Yankee Boards are saying that Gammons said on radio that Sox is now willing to give Ellsbury for Santana. Sorry no links and not sure how credible the news is.

 

One reason Sox could do that is because looks like Ellsbury needs to be a part of Haren trade also. If that is the case might as well get Santana for him.

 

It will be nice if this makes the Yankees give up Hughes and Kennedy both.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

I have to say the Red Sox are deep with outfield talent in the farm system.

 

Ryan Kalish, Jason Place, Che-Hsuan Lin, Josh Reddick

 

...we are going to see these kids make more of an impression in the next year or so....I think there is a chance one of them could make us forget about Jacoby Ellsbury quickly. This may not be such a bad move. The upgrade from Jon Lester to Johan Santana is much more significant than the downgrade of Ellsbury to Crisp (if a downgrade at all).

[BSN07]

Not really sure why OAK wants Jacoby. I didn't think crisp would be part of a deal for Haren either with them having Kotsay. I know he has injury issues but I thought he was signed long term.

 

 

I know I'm a minority on this but I think Haren is a better cost controlled value. The 20M a yr we would save could go towards alot. A bat for instance after Manny leaves, cause I don't expect the Sox to pick up his 20M+ options. This something I have to think is being considered.

 

If its the same or less prospects to get Haren I go that route and let NYY throw all there young gns away and pay 150M to Santana.

 

Either way whatever happens this makes for great discussion:D

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

I would think if the Red Sox add Jacoby Ellsbury in place of Coco Crisp for the previous deal mentioned....what would the Yankees need to do to counter?

 

Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, Austin Jackson

vs.

Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson

 

Thats a tough call between those offers

[Jayhawk Bill]

I would think if the Red Sox add Jacoby Ellsbury in place of Coco Crisp for the previous deal mentioned....what would the Yankees need to do to counter?

 

Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, Austin Jackson

vs.

Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson

 

Thats a tough call between those offers

 

Not really. The Yankees' offer is stronger with the inclusion of Hughes.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Not really. The Yankees' offer is stronger with the inclusion of Hughes.

 

I'm not so sure since the Twins are already loaded with pitching talent. They are more interested in offense. Ellsbury and Lowrie will give the Twins a middle infielder and CF who can both contribute heavily on offense. Austin Jackson still has a ways to go and Melky Cabrera just won't be a big offensive player.

 

I will take Hughes and Kennedy over Lester and Masterson but whats more important to the Twins? My bet is they go with the offense.

[a700hitter]

I can't help but smile just a little bit when I think that the Yankees are going to end up paying Santana close to what he would get on the market. Instead of doing it next year' date=' like so many of us assumed they would, they want to get started right away by dealing their top prospect.[/quote']I will not be smiling if the Yankees get Santana, but I really don't want to see Ellsbury go. I think he will be a star within 2 years.

[a700hitter]

"I think a big key in this situation is you know what you're going to get out of Santana," Papelbon said. "He's a veteran Cy Young Award winner. Sometimes you don't necessarily know what you're going to get [from a prospect]. You may think a prospect has a ton of potential, but you don't know what his potential really is until he gets to the big leagues. You know exactly what you're going to get from Santana, so do you take that gamble or not?"

Spoken by a guy who recently a prospect.

[das11209]

I will not be smiling if the Yankees get Santana' date=' but I really don't want to see Ellsbury go. I think he will be a star within 2 years.[/quote']

 

I agree. On one hand it will be great if the Yankees trade away their farm. Still at least for the near future - I see no reason to celebrate if the Yankees get Santana. If you look at it - they replace Hughes with Santana - how is that a bad thing for next 2-3 years?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm not so sure since the Twins are already loaded with pitching talent. They are more interested in offense. Ellsbury and Lowrie will give the Twins a middle infielder and CF who can both contribute heavily on offense. Austin Jackson still has a ways to go and Melky Cabrera just won't be a big offensive player.

 

I will take Hughes and Kennedy over Lester and Masterson but whats more important to the Twins? My bet is they go with the offense.

 

Melky Cabrera just won't be a big offensive player?

 

It's easy to forget that Melky Cabrera is almost a year younger than Jacoby Ellsbury. He's going to develop more than Ellsbury because of that: you're looking at a career average maybe 25 OBP points and 50 SLG points higher than he is right now, with a peak value that much higher again in his good years. A good defensive outfielder who hits .295/.365/.435 most years and .315/.390/.485 his peak years is one of the better hitters in the league.

 

Regarding the pitching talent, I hear echoes of Joe Sheehan's piece, written while it looked as if Santana were swiftly heading for Boston. Sheehan is a Yankees fan, and he'll do anything to belittle the Red Sox or, in this case, the quality of their offer. I disagree with his logic this time. I agree that the Twins have pitching prospects, but they're not MLB-ready for the most part. Sheehan ranks Anthony Swarzak as the Twins' fourth-best pitcher. Swarzak missed 50 games via suspension for drug abuse this year, and he's not projected to reach MLB until 2009 IF he can keep his nose clean. Kevin Slowey and Boof Bonser are both ranked ahead of Swarzak...look, Bonser and Slowey will be capable 3/4 starters, but these aren't the top names of a strong pitching staff. Hughes is such a name, and Hughes would rank with a healthy Liriano as the best pitchers for the Twins once Santana were gone. Phil Hughes is a big asset for Minnesota--that's why they demanded that he be included!

 

Crisp, Lester, Lowrie and Masterson/Bowden are a very valuable package of talent. I just see Hughes and Cabrera plus one or two others as exceeding the value that Boston has offered.

[castigs850]

hopefully now that the yankees have upped thier offer for santana we dont try to counter it but instead go for haren. Does anyone know what the A's are looking for? Would they accept the deal that we had proposed for santana? Or would he cost even less?

[Cocos Disciples]

More IMO.

[castigs850]

how much more could he possibly cost, if we are already offering jacoby for santana? because buchholz isn't going anywhere

[Rdsxmbnt]

This is interesting, last line in particular:

 

The Twins continue to discuss possible deals from other teams, including the Dodgers and Mariners, and they are scheduled to speak with the Red Sox on Saturday afternoon. Boston's offer on the table is for pitcher Jon Lester, center fielder Coco Crisp and minor league infielder Jed Lowrie, and a fourth player -- a minor league pitcher -- is to be determined. The Twins want the Red Sox to add either center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury or pitcher Clay Buchholz to the deal, and there are indications that if they do, that offer is what Minnesota will prefer.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3136495

[ORS]

Melky Cabrera just won't be a big offensive player?

 

It's easy to forget that Melky Cabrera is almost a year younger than Jacoby Ellsbury. He's going to develop more than Ellsbury because of that: you're looking at a career average maybe 25 OBP points and 50 SLG points higher than he is right now, with a peak value that much higher again in his good years. A good defensive outfielder who hits .295/.365/.435 most years and .315/.390/.485 his peak years is one of the better hitters in the league.

 

I'm not seeing it.

 

.273/.327/.391 over a full year in '07

.280/.360/.391 in his big sample in '06

.275/.322/.411 in his big sample in '05 at AA

.288/.341/.438 in '04 at A+

 

He's once shown the type of IsoD you predict. This is typically not a skill one learns. Those with patience and pitch recognition show it early. He's played two full seasons worth of ball at the ultimate level and shown little to no progression. He is what he is, IMO. While he will ultimately develop more power than Ellsbury, the rest of his game will lag behind, and his body type will necessitate a move to corner without possessing the bat to be of significant value there.

.

[a700hitter]

As between Ellsbury and Bucholz, it will be interesting to see which one the Sox will part with if they close this deal. Based on what I have seen, Ellsbury clearly will be a star. If the Sox are willing to part with him instead of Bucholz, they must have a very, very high ceiling for Bucholz. What I have seen from Bucholz has looked very promising too, but I haven't seen enough to be as sure about him as Ellsbury. Giving up one of them will be hard, but they'd be getting a Cy Young pitcher in return.

[riverside sluggers]

FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal says the Twins informed the Yankees they were prepared to deal Johan Santana to the Red Sox unless Phil Hughes was part of the deal.

 

Whether they were being serious or just improving their negotiating position, the tactic appears to have worked, with the Yankees deciding to offer Hughes in place of Ian Kennedy on Friday afternoon. The two sides haven't agreed upon a third player in addition to Hughes and Melky Cabrera. Austin Jackson, Jose Tabata and Alan Horne look like the candidates, though the Twins could always push for both Hughes and Kennedy. It's expected that the Red Sox would have to improve their offer to include Jacoby Ellsbury or Clay Buchholz if they're going to land Santana.

[BSN07]

I will not be smiling if the Yankees get Santana' date=' but I really don't want to see Ellsbury go. I think he will be a star within 2 years.[/quote']

 

A700hitter... you anting to keep a prospect over a proven MLB talent? And a Cy Young winner at that? LOL Have you finally joined us on the darkside?

 

By us I mean people willing to let prospects develop more or less...:thumbsup:

[a700hitter]

A700hitter... you anting to keep a prospect over a proven MLB talent? And a Cy Young winner at that? LOL Have you finally joined us on the darkside?

 

By us I mean people willing to let prospects develop more or less...:thumbsup:

These guys already have shown something at the major league level, and they are major league ready. I see Ellsbury in the "can't miss." category. Bowden and Masterson might be very good too, but the are at least a couple to three years away from being major contributors, so I won't miss them. By the time they are ready, Santana may have won one or two more Cy Youngs and a Championship or two. I am generally impatient about waiting for prospects when they can get us stars, but Ellsbury and Bucholz have earned their place and they have shown extreme promise at the ML level. I'd still trade one of them but not both.